Skip to content


Tirmal Singh Vs. Kanhaiya Singh and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1923All356; 84Ind.Cas.585
AppellantTirmal Singh
RespondentKanhaiya Singh and anr.
Cases ReferredKhan v. Ihsanullah Khan
Excerpt:
letters parent (ll), clause 10 - civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xlvii, rule 7--review of judgment, application for, dismissal of appeal, whether lies. - - the order complained of in the present case is unappealable......: 15 a.l.j. 46, and in the recent case of gajadhar prasad v., naivab muhammad abdul majid (letters patent appeal no. 81 of 1921 decided on the 9th of february, 1923). in all these cases it was held that an appeal would not lie under the letters patent. the principle applied by this court in these cases equally applies to the present case. our attention was drawn to the case of sadiq ali v. anwar ali 70 ind. cas. 805 : 20 a.l.j. 801 : (1923) a.i.r. (a.) 44. that case is distinguishable from the present and we do not consider that in that case any rule of law was laid down contrary to that enunciated in the rulings to which we have referred. in any case we are bound by the decision of the full bench reported in muhammad naim-ullah khan v. ihsanullah khan 14 a. 226 : a.w.n. (1892) 14 : 7.....
Judgment:

1. In our judgment no appeal lies in this case under Section 10 of the Letters Patent. An appeal preferred to this Court was dismissed by a learned Judge. An application was made to have that order set aside and that application was treated as an application for review of judgment. The learned. Judge rejected the application for review and from his order rejecting the application for review of judgment this appeal under the Letters Patent has been preferred. In Order XLVII, Rule 7, of the C.P.C. it is provided that no appeal lies from an order rejecting an application for review of judgment and under Order XLIII, Rule 1, there is no provision for an appeal from an order rejecting such an application. Therefore, according to the C.P.C. the order complained of in the present case is unappealable. It is contended that Section 10 of the Letters Patent is wide enough to allow an appeal in a case of this kind. The whole question of appeals under the Letters Patent was considered by the Full Bench in the case of Muhammad Naim-ullah Khan v. Ihsanullah Khan 14 A. 226 : A.W.N. (1892) 14 : 7 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 515. The same point was considered in Piare Lal v. Madan Lal 39 Ind. Cas. 460 : 39 A. 191 : 15 A.L.J. 46, and in the recent case of Gajadhar Prasad v., Naivab Muhammad Abdul Majid (Letters Patent Appeal No. 81 of 1921 decided on the 9th of February, 1923). In all these cases it was held that an appeal would not lie under the Letters Patent. The principle applied by this Court in these cases equally applies to the present case. Our attention was drawn to the case of Sadiq Ali v. Anwar Ali 70 Ind. Cas. 805 : 20 A.L.J. 801 : (1923) A.I.R. (A.) 44. That case is distinguishable from the present and we do not consider that in that case any rule of law was laid down contrary to that enunciated in the rulings to which we have referred. In any case we are bound by the decision of the Full Bench reported in Muhammad Naim-ullah Khan v. Ihsanullah Khan 14 A. 226 : A.W.N. (1892) 14 : 7 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) and following that and the other cases to which we have referred, we must hold that no appeal lies. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //